Can the effects of a nuclear bomb be mitigated through energy redirection?

[oldunion]

according to the 1st link by astronuc, with no atmosphere to ionize there would be no fireball. What we would see with our eyes, is only the visible spectrum of light although other wavelengths could be seen with equipment. With no shockwave lethality has already dropped by 50 percent. although, a network of nuclear bombs place around the globe as satelites could apparently have some serious emp destructive effects.

A nuclear bomb doesn't seem like much of a weapon in space

 

[Astronuc]

The atmosphere is an important component in the destructive force of any explosive, but particularly for nuclear weapons. It is the pressure waves caused by the propogation of the explosion through the atmosphere that causes much of the destruction.

But nuclear blasts also generate a lot of EM radiation. People (e.g. Hiroshima and Nagaskai) suffered radiation burns and tremendous heat near the blast.

Without the atmoshpere, the fireball would be much smaller - constrained by the mass of the CM and surrounding material. The damage would primarily come from the EM radiation.

 

[Morbius]

according to the 1st link by astronuc, with no atmosphere to ionize there would be no fireball. What we would see with our eyes, is only the visible spectrum of light although other wavelengths could be seen with equipment. With no shockwave lethality has already dropped by 50 percent. although, a network of nuclear bombs place around the globe as satelites could apparently have some serious emp destructive effects.

A nuclear bomb doesn't seem like much of a weapon in space

oldunion,

The nuclear weapon holds up better in space than a chemical explosion.

Although the effects of the nuclear weapon are mitigated by the lack of
an atmosphere to launch a shock wave - the same holds true for chemical
explosives.

However, for chemical explosives - the ability to launch a shock wave is
about all the chemical bomb has going for it. [ Unless you have a some
type of fragmentation weapon - like a big hand-grenade that will throw
shrapnel.]

The nuclear bomb puts out one hell of a lot of radiation. The radiation
from a nuclear bomb is so intense - that it is still a very formidable
weapon in space - whereas the chemical explosive isn't.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[oldunion]

The atmosphere is an important component in the destructive force of any explosive, but particularly for nuclear weapons. It is the pressure waves caused by the propogation of the explosion through the atmosphere that causes much of the destruction.

But nuclear blasts also generate a lot of EM radiation. People (e.g. Hiroshima and Nagaskai) suffered radiation burns and tremendous heat near the blast.

Without the atmoshpere, the fireball would be much smaller - constrained by the mass of the CM and surrounding material. The damage would primarily come from the EM radiation.

Electro Magnetic radiation cause no known side effects, the first link states this. Gamma, Aplpha, X-Ray, is what will cause lethality.

Looks like space warfare will require new weapons, whereas a nuke is still destructive but not nearly as much.

Which reminds me, they blew up the asteroid in armageddon with a nuke...

 

[hitssquad]

Which forms of nuclear blast radiation are electromagnetic

The damage would primarily come from the EM radiation.

Electro Magnetic radiation cause no known side effects, the first link states this. Gamma, Aplpha, X-Ray, is what will cause lethality.

Gamma radiation and X-radiation are forms of electromagnetic (EM) radiation:
http://www.lbl.gov/MicroWorlds/ALSTool/EMSpec/EMSpec2.html

Alpha radiation consists of particles (helium nuclei) which are relatively harmless to the human body when striking it from without.

 

[Morbius]

Electro Magnetic radiation cause no known side effects, the first link states this. Gamma, Aplpha, X-Ray, is what will cause lethality.

Gamma and X-ray radiation [ which ARE forms of electro-magnetic
radiation] at the intensities in a bomb do kill. Alpha particles are very
short range and can't even penetrate the dead layer of skin surrounding
the body..

As Astronuc points out - alpha particles from without are harmless. The
only way alpha particles are dangerous is if you actually injest the
radioactive material.

Looks like space warfare will require new weapons, whereas a nuke is still destructive but not nearly as much.

I wouldn't say "not nearly so much". The nuke is just as destructive -
it's just that the destructive energy takes a different form - it doesn't
launch a blast wave in air - but that doesn't mean that the energy that
would have gone into the blast wave just goes away. NO - the energy is
still there, and just as destructive.

Which reminds me, they blew up the asteroid in armageddon with a nuke...

Perfectly plausible. You use the bomb to blow off a good chunk of the
asteroid. The rest of the asteroid recoils and is thus diverted from an
Earth crossing trajectory.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[hitssquad]

The Armageddon movie asteroid and the nuke that split it

they blew up the asteroid in armageddon with a nuke

Perfectly plausible.

It was opined by many experts when the movie came out that trying to nuke an asteroid wouldn't work if it was made up of loose gravel.

You use the bomb to blow off a good chunk of the asteroid. The rest of the asteroid recoils and is thus diverted from an Earth crossing trajectory.

In the movie, they split the asteroid in half so the two halves would pass on either side of the earth. The diameter of the asteroid was ~750 miles ("the size of Texas"; and half the diameter of the planet Pluto), and the nuke was small enough to fit in a shuttle cargo bay along with drilling tools (they had to drill down a long way to properly place the nuke) and a large electric rover vehicle.

The size of the asteroid in the movie was, I think, overkill for a "global killer," and the idea that something that large could be split in half with a nuke small enough to fit in a shuttle cargo bay I do not find realistic.

 

[Astronuc]

It was opined by many experts when the movie came out that trying to nuke an asteroid wouldn't work if it was made up of loose gravel.

That is still the case. And it could make things worse, e.g. if a small loosely packed comet type dispersed over a wider area on earth, i.e. the difference between a slug and a shot gun blast.

In the movie, they split the asteroid in half so the two halves would pass on either side of the earth. The diameter of the asteroid was ~750 miles ("the size of Texas"; and half the diameter of the planet Pluto), and the nuke was small enough to fit in a shuttle cargo bay along with drilling tools (they had to drill down a long way to properly place the nuke) and a large electric rover vehicle.

The size of the asteroid in the movie was, I think, overkill for a "global killer," and the idea that something that large could be split in half with a nuke small enough to fit in a shuttle cargo bay I do not find realistic.

Afterall, it's science fiction.

Ceres, the largest known asteroid has a reported diameter of 930-970 km (584-602 miles).

 

[Morbius]

The size of the asteroid in the movie was, I think, overkill for a "global killer," and the idea that something that large could be split in half with a nuke small enough to fit in a shuttle cargo bay I do not find realistic.

hitssquad,

You don't need to split the asteroid in half. You just have to blow enough
off so that the recoil will send the rest of the asteroid into a trajectory
that misses Earth.

The particulars with how to deal with an Earth-intersecting asteroid was
the topic of a workshop for scientists held about 10 years ago at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It was called "The Planetary
Defense Workshop" and the proceedings are posted online at the LLNL
website:

http://www.llnl.gov/planetary/

You can read papers of how to use "kinetic kill" vehicles, lasers, and
other forms of non-nuclear defenses - in addition to the nuclear weapons.

In particular, if you look at the study by Petrov, et. al; "The Effect of
Neutron Radiation from a Nuclear Explosion on an Asteroid", in the
bottom paragraph on page 5; the authors conclude that the fraction
of the bomb's energy that is absorbed doesn't depend on density. Their
assumed asteroid composition is silicon dioxide [ which is what makes
up sand].

A nuke that would fill the shuttle's cargo bay would be HUGE. Remember,
our current strategic warheads are small enough to fit several on a
small missile, two dozen of which fits in a submarine. Each bomber
aircraft can also carry several bombs - and bomb bays are not that big.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[russ_watters]

For some scale, the Hubble is about the biggest thing you can fit in the Shuttle cargo bay. Its about the size of a schoolbus - 13.3 meters long and 4.3 wide. A tomahawk cruise missile carries a W-80, which is medium sized at 200kt, and is about the size of an old metal trashcan - .5m in diameter and, I'm guessing, about 1.5m long.

 

[Morbius]

For some scale, the Hubble is about the biggest thing you can fit in the Shuttle cargo bay. Its about the size of a schoolbus - 13.3 meters long and 4.3 wide. A tomahawk cruise missile carries a W-80, which is medium sized at 200kt, and is about the size of an old metal trashcan - .5m in diameter and, I'm guessing, about 1.5m long.

Russ,

A "picture being worth a thousand words", here's a picture of the W-80 and
and two of its handlers for scale. Courtesy of the Nuclear Weapons Archive:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W80handle.jpg

The LLNL designed W-87 is the warhead of the "Peacekeeper" [ aka MX ]
missile and is a modern "strategic" weapon. Also courtesy of the Nuclear
Weapons archive is a picture of the W-87 Rvs [ reentry vehicles ] being
loaded on the Peacekeeper "bus":

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W87clr.jpg

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[oldunion]

i recall the blast looking something like two aposing semi-spheres, with a wave type appearance. If an air pulsed blast wave isn't ripping the steller body to pieces, then what is?